Women Voters Will Decide Whether 2012 is a "Year of the Woman" for Female Candidates

Forbes Woman
I write about women, economics, politics, and where they all overlap.

Yes, I know. Every election cycle since 1992 – the original “Year of the Woman,” when the number of women in the Senate went from two to five – has also been another supposed Year of the Woman, including the 2010 midterms that actually reduced the number of women in Congress. But this year really may be on track to build on the gains of 1992, and it’s not just because of the huge number of women running. It’s also because women voters may swing the elections their way. This crucial voting block is fed up with the white men it sees in Congress and may turn its attention to female candidates instead.

The number of women running this year is very promising. As Stephanie Schriock, President of EMILY’s List, told me, “This nation has never had this many women running for the U.S. Senate.” A total of 36 women filed, and 23 are still in the running. On top of that, the House is on track to make history in the number of women running, even if it hasn’t quite reached ’92 levels yet. So far 291 women have filed for the House, with the potential for more to sign up.

But it doesn’t just take historic numbers of women running to get more into Congress and move past the 18 percent ceiling we haven’t quite been able to change. They have to win their races first. And that’s where a key voter demographic comes into play. EMILY’s List recently released the findings of research on women who were critical in the 2008 elections but sat out the 2010 midterms: registered, moderate, blue- or pink-collar, non-evangelical independent women who are still undecided about 2012. The pollsters conducted two online focus group discussions with these women and came up with some pretty interesting results.

As Schriock pointed out, “These women voters aren’t saying I’m going to vote for a woman just because she’s a woman,” as if there’s some sort of indelible sisterhood among us all. But when they describe what’s wrong with our current Congress, the language and images are skewed heavily male. When they describe what they’d rather see instead, it lines up pretty well with the women who are currently running for office.

This wasn’t necessarily always true. As Lisa Grove, one of the pollsters who worked on the research, said, “A number of years ago we wouldn’t have seen that.” It was more about “let’s go in, get it done, I want tough action” – the kind of things many voters associate with men. This may be part of why we’ve made little progress in women’s representation in Congress lately.

This time things are different. Without giving any prompts or materials, EMILY’s List asked these women to find images and language to best describe their view of Congress. And what they got back was striking. The images were of sloths and Jabba the Hut – expressing the notion that Congress is lazy and incompetent – but also of old white men who care more about money than real people. On top of this, “the words that they used were very, very male,” Grove said. A sampling of some of the responses: “A bunch of silver haired mostly guys.” “Men trying to run everyone’s lives the way that they feel it should be.” “I picture old, white, and male.” “Men were a big part of the problem for these women,” Grove summarized.

What would they rather see instead? While these voters have always felt there was a gulf between their lives and what Congress cares about, this time around it “felt more profound,” Grove said. That divide between real life and political life is a huge problem for these moderate, independent women voters. “These women feel Washington is out of touch with their lives,” Schriock said. “They believe the wrong issues are being prioritized.” So when they see women candidates who are talking about real issues that affect real life – who look and talk like these women voters to boot – the combination can be very effective. “Their BS meters are set pretty darn high,” Grove said, so women candidates who can offer substantive solutions stand a very good chance of winning these voters’ favor.

They are also less interested in career politicians or politicians who spent their lives getting rich. That describes very few women. They’d rather those who have an interest in community and service instead. “It’s the person who’s giving more than taking back,” Grove explained. “Everyday heroes, teachers, nurses, firefighters, veterans, volunteers. People who believe in service.” And there are a lot of women candidates who fit that description. Two women with combat service experience, Tammy Duckworth and Tulsi Gabbard, are running – the first time that’s ever happened – and Val Demings is a former police chief. Lois Capps has experience as a nurse, and two others have worked in social services: Kyrsten Sinema as a social worker and Maggie Hassan as an advocate for disabled children.

These voters also believe things would be different with more women in Congress. When asked how it might change if they themselves were there, these voters said it would be “less combative, more collaborative, more effective,” Grove said. They are also seeking qualities that tend to be associated with women. They want “the three Cs,” Grove explained: “compromise, collaboration, cooperation.” It’s debatable whether all women really have these traits, given that we’re a pretty diverse bunch. But still, it’s a good sign for the women running this cycle.

Women voters may very well decide the presidential election and could be a huge factor if President Obama hangs on to his seat. But it’s clear that they’re going to have a huge effect down ticket as well. We need more women in Congress, and angry, motivated, independent women may be just what we need to get them there.

I am a writer and editor living and working in New York City. I am Editor of the Roosevelt Institute's Next New Deal blog and my writing has appeared on The Nation, The Atlantic, GOOD Magazine, AlterNet, and others. From women's issues to wonking out, I'm always looking for...